Centrifugal force throw out?
I would add the purposeful uncocking of the wrists as well. Nicklaus in "Golf My Way" video said he released straight from the top. Still maybe the best instructional videos of all time.
Acceleration of clubhead
- Thread starter mandrin
- Start date
- Status
Centrifugal force throw out?
I would add the purposeful uncocking of the wrists as well. Nicklaus in "Golf My Way" video said he released straight from the top. Still maybe the best instructional videos of all time.
OK OK OK
Mandrin and nmg (and I know you hit the ball a long way nm..so some of your theory must be right)...
So for the 99% of us here who are not nuclear physicists.....
Can we now assume:
Release (correct) for max acceleraton of the clubhead can only be caused by three things
1) Change of direction of the hand path?..
2) Slowing of the left arm, allowing the club to "catch-up" (for WHATEVER reason)?..
3) If the left arm doesn't slow, then the hands have to work more actively at the bottom to "make" the release?....
I'll bump as well.
Yeah, to be quite honest the whole acceleration or deceleration at impact is up in the air for me. I'm just presenting the argument to get people thinking and possibly come up with a definate answer.
Here's the problem, everyone just notates speed. Even in your example you only remark on the speed of the clubhead. But acceleration is not JUST speed but also change in direction. Now, it may not be changing direction as much as it was before impact, but if it's still changing direction then it is by definition accelerating and that's the point everyone seems to just be neglecting.
Was my answer not complete enough?
jmessner - I just wrote a long thoughtful response to you but this !@#$%^ forum logged me out and it was lost.... talk about frustrating! Bottomline: in science there is only one right answer for a given problem statement and set of assumptions. We begin with root cause (first principles if you will) and we must carefully scrutinize the set of assumptions.
Any assumption that has been proven by test or analysis to be invalid such as the CF powered release myth, the COAM myth, the hands slowing prior to impact myth etc. must be tossed into the waste-bin of history. Only then, by starting with clear problem statement, a clean slate, an open mind and valid set assumptions can one proceed to accurate optimal solutions.
Most people want the answer(s) handed to them on a silver platter. Its only natural; we're generally lazy. But its the process that is important. By forcing ourselves to think critically and to experiment, new neural pathways leading to deeper understanding and a firm foundation on which to continue to build and put into place.
I won't do the heavy lifting (the distillation) for Jim, Jeff or Puttmad. That would be doing them a disservice. It would also be doing myself a disservice because in their process of discovery they may come across something from which I myself can benefit. That's how we learn and we grow.
This thread is headed every which way now... My purpose was to expose the logical fallacy of the CF powered release. To that end I've done what I can. Sure some will brand me a heretic. Cognitive dissonance is rampant so naturally some will cling tightly to their delusions. So be it. In time their beliefs will be exposed for what they are and the truth will become self-evident. By then some of us will be that much further down the road, the gap widening with those stuck in their ways left to eat our dust. Thats just the way it is.
Any assumption that has been proven by test or analysis to be invalid such as the CF powered release myth, the COAM myth, the hands slowing prior to impact myth etc. must be tossed into the waste-bin of history. Only then, by starting with clear problem statement, a clean slate, an open mind and valid set assumptions can one proceed to accurate optimal solutions.
Most people want the answer(s) handed to them on a silver platter. Its only natural; we're generally lazy. But its the process that is important. By forcing ourselves to think critically and to experiment, new neural pathways leading to deeper understanding and a firm foundation on which to continue to build and put into place.
I won't do the heavy lifting (the distillation) for Jim, Jeff or Puttmad. That would be doing them a disservice. It would also be doing myself a disservice because in their process of discovery they may come across something from which I myself can benefit. That's how we learn and we grow.
This thread is headed every which way now... My purpose was to expose the logical fallacy of the CF powered release. To that end I've done what I can. Sure some will brand me a heretic. Cognitive dissonance is rampant so naturally some will cling tightly to their delusions. So be it. In time their beliefs will be exposed for what they are and the truth will become self-evident. By then some of us will be that much further down the road, the gap widening with those stuck in their ways left to eat our dust. Thats just the way it is.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Oh, it was complete...
It was very wordy, and what I could make out of it—which from the point of view of our forum members wan't much—I didn't agree with.
We are looking for the MATH guys to answer in plain talk.
Ringer gave it his best shot.
It was very wordy, and what I could make out of it—which from the point of view of our forum members wan't much—I didn't agree with.
We are looking for the MATH guys to answer in plain talk.
Ringer gave it his best shot.
mandrin
New
Newton’s Third Law
nmgolfer claims that:
“There is absolutely no need to resort to patently wrong magical mystical totally nonsensical centrifugal force theories…….”
You start wondering if above line has anything to do with science. It is such a ridiculous overstatement. It appears more like coming from a fanatic religious sect.
It is indeed a strange phenomenon, this strong aversion against the existence of a simple innocent inertial force. You find it on various web sites and even in text books.
They all have the same repetitive repertoire of cute little examples trying to convince us that it is all a hoax. Cutting the rope of a whirling mass is one stupid argument often employed.
Debating this often ends up in a brawl going nowhere simply becoming a question of semantics. Or even as some resorting to, rather silly, claiming to know more than you.
On a forum like this science is not the goal but simply to advance BM’s ideas and business. Yet he is very open to all ideas realizing that it is part of a healthy growth process.
I will try to give some arguments in the simplest way possible so that each and everyone can form an idea what this hype of centrifugal force is all about.
The foundation, the bedrock, of Dynamics is based on the Three Laws of Newton. We will be primarily concerned with the Third Law in our argumentation.
Newton’s Third Law – To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction; or, the mutual action of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.
It look perhaps simple but for many it is just impossible to really grasp its meaning. It basically says that forces ALWAYS come in PAIRS.
Even highly qualified NASA scientists had forgotten about its meaning, leading to a humiliating space walk failure So don’t feel discouraged if having some problems.
Hence a REAL action force is hence always accompanied by a REAL reaction force. This applies universally; it is part of the bedrock foundation of Newtonian physics.
Anyone claiming to have a force operate SOLELY is therefore definitely and immediately attacking and trying to destroy the very foundation of Newtonian physics.
Now what are people like nmgolfer, or Jack Kuykendall, and others, really saying?
They claim very strongly the SOLE existence of centripetal force - hence as an unbalanced force. Tthey hence deny the existence of its legitimate counterpart - centrifugal force - simply qualifying it as a hoax, fictitious, and other similar strong epithets.
It is clear from above that those who, in the name of science, treat, often arrogantly, people like morons because they believe in centrifugal force, are actually heretics and should be exposed as such.
You definitely can’t have it both ways. Either you believe in universally accepted Newtonian physics and therefore it’s Third Law or you don’t and you should start up your own little voodoo science sect on the sideline.
What is actually amusing is that there is a fashion to claim centrifugal force to be hoax and yet do a little search in dictionaries.
Try to find a piece of machinery or apparatus using the qualifier ‘centripetal’. Not much coming up?
Do the same for 'centrifugal' - centrifugal box, centrifugal brake, centrifugal casting, centrifugal clutch, centrifugal fan, centrifugal compressor, centrifugal supercharger, etc..
Not too bad for a patently wrong magical mystical totally nonsensical centrifugal force.
nmgolfer claims that:
“There is absolutely no need to resort to patently wrong magical mystical totally nonsensical centrifugal force theories…….”
You start wondering if above line has anything to do with science. It is such a ridiculous overstatement. It appears more like coming from a fanatic religious sect.
It is indeed a strange phenomenon, this strong aversion against the existence of a simple innocent inertial force. You find it on various web sites and even in text books.
They all have the same repetitive repertoire of cute little examples trying to convince us that it is all a hoax. Cutting the rope of a whirling mass is one stupid argument often employed.
Debating this often ends up in a brawl going nowhere simply becoming a question of semantics. Or even as some resorting to, rather silly, claiming to know more than you.
On a forum like this science is not the goal but simply to advance BM’s ideas and business. Yet he is very open to all ideas realizing that it is part of a healthy growth process.
I will try to give some arguments in the simplest way possible so that each and everyone can form an idea what this hype of centrifugal force is all about.
The foundation, the bedrock, of Dynamics is based on the Three Laws of Newton. We will be primarily concerned with the Third Law in our argumentation.
Newton’s Third Law – To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction; or, the mutual action of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.
It look perhaps simple but for many it is just impossible to really grasp its meaning. It basically says that forces ALWAYS come in PAIRS.
Even highly qualified NASA scientists had forgotten about its meaning, leading to a humiliating space walk failure So don’t feel discouraged if having some problems.
Hence a REAL action force is hence always accompanied by a REAL reaction force. This applies universally; it is part of the bedrock foundation of Newtonian physics.
Anyone claiming to have a force operate SOLELY is therefore definitely and immediately attacking and trying to destroy the very foundation of Newtonian physics.
Now what are people like nmgolfer, or Jack Kuykendall, and others, really saying?
They claim very strongly the SOLE existence of centripetal force - hence as an unbalanced force. Tthey hence deny the existence of its legitimate counterpart - centrifugal force - simply qualifying it as a hoax, fictitious, and other similar strong epithets.
It is clear from above that those who, in the name of science, treat, often arrogantly, people like morons because they believe in centrifugal force, are actually heretics and should be exposed as such.
You definitely can’t have it both ways. Either you believe in universally accepted Newtonian physics and therefore it’s Third Law or you don’t and you should start up your own little voodoo science sect on the sideline.
What is actually amusing is that there is a fashion to claim centrifugal force to be hoax and yet do a little search in dictionaries.
Try to find a piece of machinery or apparatus using the qualifier ‘centripetal’. Not much coming up?
Do the same for 'centrifugal' - centrifugal box, centrifugal brake, centrifugal casting, centrifugal clutch, centrifugal fan, centrifugal compressor, centrifugal supercharger, etc..
Not too bad for a patently wrong magical mystical totally nonsensical centrifugal force.
Last edited:
Steve - the only relevant answer you gave was very brief - "Momentum of the the club or forced hand action."
I reject "forced hand action" because the PingMan machine and many good golfers (eg. Ben Hogan) have passive wrists and NO forced hand action.
Therefore, I would like you to expand on the topic of "momentum of the club". I presume that it is the same force as the force that another forum member labelled "centrifugal force thowout". I would like to read a detailed, and coherent, explanation of the phenomenon.
Jeff.
I reject "forced hand action" because the PingMan machine and many good golfers (eg. Ben Hogan) have passive wrists and NO forced hand action.
Therefore, I would like you to expand on the topic of "momentum of the club". I presume that it is the same force as the force that another forum member labelled "centrifugal force thowout". I would like to read a detailed, and coherent, explanation of the phenomenon.
Jeff.
BM, here is my direct answer which seems to have just been skipped over.
You can do one OR the other only because the shaft acts more like a steel rod than a rope.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
this !@#$%^ forum
nm,
This this !@#$%^ forum, is my !@#$%^ forum, and to be honest, for what it is, is the very best on the web.
It ALLOWS folks like you to argue your beilefs, and you have be doing a good job with it.
I'd love to spend spme time with you, and folks like Mandrin, Zick and Grober, because I can make sense out of all this great info.
So...be mindful, you are my guest.
Ah.....no.
If you can not explain something in childlike terms, you really don't OWN it yourself.
This is something Don Villavaso taught me, which has served myself and my students well.
You have something to add, nm, as does everyone. But make it CLEAR and useful or, it really is just a bunch of words.
nm,
This this !@#$%^ forum, is my !@#$%^ forum, and to be honest, for what it is, is the very best on the web.
It ALLOWS folks like you to argue your beilefs, and you have be doing a good job with it.
I'd love to spend spme time with you, and folks like Mandrin, Zick and Grober, because I can make sense out of all this great info.
So...be mindful, you are my guest.
Ah.....no.
If you can not explain something in childlike terms, you really don't OWN it yourself.
This is something Don Villavaso taught me, which has served myself and my students well.
You have something to add, nm, as does everyone. But make it CLEAR and useful or, it really is just a bunch of words.
It is the same phenomenon just labled more correctly. It's symantics really but this whole debate is sparked from the whole point that mandrin isn't willing to accept when he's wrong and then turns to snide personal attacks. Just wait til you have an opposing view from him, you'll see it soon enough.
Ok, so lets get into the phenomenon a bit more.
If centripetal force is directed inward and centrifugal is outward in exact opposite directions, what causes the direction of the whirling rock when it's released?
Some sort of force HAS to knock it off it's course. But if centripetal and centrifugal are exact equals neither of them could have influenced it.
Instead think of it as momentum ALWAYS trying to go straight. When a force acts on that momentum then the objects direction will change but the new direction will still be straight.
In order for you to change that momentum from straight to curved you must apply a constant force and thus a constant change. That constant force is centripetal. That completes the system. There is no need for "centrifugal" because momentum acts as a force. The opposing force to centripetal is momentum.
Newton did not believe that momentum was a force but instead that inertia was a PROPERTY of mass. So since it was not a force he had to create one to balance out centripetal. This posed a problem though. The motion of the object is continually angular when it's swinging... but force can only be linear. You can push or pull in straight lines only. So centripetal pulls to the center, centrifugal pulls away from the center. Do you see the problem? How can an object be moving in a circle but the only forces acting on it are straight! So out came this concept of "rotating frames".
It was one rationalization after another to explain something that Newton couldn't quite explain.
But then Mach came along and did some screwy things with the concepts which however bizzar they were became the foundation Einstein physics.
Anyway, if you simply ACCEPT that momentum can be a force as well as a property of the mass, then you'll realize that centrifugal force only gunks up the works.
Vicious Circle
New
It doesn't make any sense to me. Are you suggesting that a rotating clubhead at 100 mph will hit the ball further than a clubhead moving in a straight line at 100 mph?
Steve - you have explained nothing about why the release phenomenon occurs.
I have no problem understanding the concept of a club having momentum at any point in the downswing, and that the club's momentum is a straight line force.
I can readily envisage the club having momentum at ths start of the downswing, and momentum a fraction of second later, and yet more momentum another fraction of a second later. What I want to understand is how this changing/increasing momentum causes the release to happen in a certain way with a detailed explanation as to why/how the clubhead eventually catches up to the hands near-impact.
Jeff.
I have no problem understanding the concept of a club having momentum at any point in the downswing, and that the club's momentum is a straight line force.
I can readily envisage the club having momentum at ths start of the downswing, and momentum a fraction of second later, and yet more momentum another fraction of a second later. What I want to understand is how this changing/increasing momentum causes the release to happen in a certain way with a detailed explanation as to why/how the clubhead eventually catches up to the hands near-impact.
Jeff.
nmgolfer claims that:
“There is absolutely no need to resort to patently wrong magical mystical totally nonsensical centrifugal force theories…….”
You start wondering if above line has anything to do with science. It is such a ridiculous overstatement. It appears more like coming from a fanatic religious sect.
It is indeed a strange phenomenon, this strong aversion against the existence of a simple innocent inertial force. You find it on various web sites and even in text books.
They all have the same repetitive repertoire of cute little examples trying to convince us that it is all a hoax. Cutting the rope of a whirling mass is one stupid argument often employed.
Debating this often ends up in a brawl going nowhere simply becoming a question of semantics. Or even as some resorting to, rather silly, claiming to know more than you.
On a forum like this science is not the goal but simply to advance BM’s ideas and business. Yet he is very open to all ideas realizing that it is part of a healthy growth process.
I will try to give some arguments in the simplest way possible so that each and everyone can form an idea what this hype of centrifugal force is all about.
The foundation, the bedrock, of Dynamics is based on the Three Laws of Newton. We will be primarily concerned with the Third Law in our argumentation.
Newton’s Third Law – To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction; or, the mutual action of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.
It look perhaps simple but for many it is just impossible to really grasp its meaning. It basically says that forces ALWAYS come in PAIRS.
Even highly qualified NASA scientists had forgotten about its meaning, leading to a humiliating space walk failure So don’t feel discouraged if having some problems.
Hence a REAL action force is hence always accompanied by a REAL reaction force. This applies universally; it is part of the bedrock foundation of Newtonian physics.
Anyone claiming to have a force operate SOLELY is therefore definitely and immediately attacking and trying to destroy the very foundation of Newtonian physics.
Now what are people like nmgolfer, or Jack Kuykendall, and others, really saying?
They claim very strongly the SOLE existence of centripetal force - hence as an unbalanced force. Tthey hence deny the existence of its legitimate counterpart - centrifugal force - simply qualifying it as a hoax, fictitious, and other similar strong epithets.
It is clear from above that those who, in the name of science, treat, often arrogantly, people like morons because they believe in centrifugal force, are actually heretics and should be exposed as such.
You definitely can’t have it both ways. Either you believe in universally accepted Newtonian physics and therefore it’s Third Law or you don’t and you should start up your own little voodoo science sect on the sideline.
What is actually amusing is that there is a fashion to claim centrifugal force to be hoax and yet do a little search in dictionaries.
Try to find a piece of machinery or apparatus using the qualifier ‘centripetal’. Not much coming up?
Do the same for 'centrifugal' - centrifugal box, centrifugal brake, centrifugal casting, centrifugal clutch, centrifugal fan, centrifugal compressor, centrifugal supercharger, etc..
Not too bad for a patently wrong magical mystical totally nonsensical centrifugal force.
Put up or shut up.
Just use your math to prove your "point". Your words ring shallow and empty. Who cares that people have given items names containing the word centrifugal. It does connote some meaning and there are two valid uses for the term in physics... Nobody disputes that. BTW (External) Forces don't come in pairs. That's true only in statics not dynamics. Sometimes forces are accompanied by motion.
I universally accept Newtownian physics... you would be wise to do so.
nm,
This this !@#$%^ forum, is my !@#$%^ forum, and to be honest, for what it is, is the very best on the web.
It ALLOWS folks like you to argue your beilefs, and you have be doing a good job with it.
I'd love to spend spme time with you, and folks like Mandrin, Zick and Grober, because I can make sense out of all this great info.
So...be mindful, you are my guest.
Ah.....no.
If you can not explain something in childlike terms, you really don't OWN it yourself.
This is something Don Villavaso taught me, which has served myself and my students well.
You have something to add, nm, as does everyone. But make it CLEAR and useful or, it really is just a bunch of words.
Don't get me wrong.... I'm not blasting you or your fourm Brian... Just wondering why "the software" occasionally logs me out causing me to lose my work. That's frustrating.
I find the best teachers are the ones who make me think... they're guides not gurus. But everyone's different. Today education seems centered on rote memorization and prep. for test-taking. There's a deliberate dumbing down taking place and that's a big mistake and a bad trend IMHP.
YES!!
F = m·a
Mass times ACCELERATION equals force. So there are three things that will create the force applied to the ball. Mass of the object hitting the ball, the SPEED that it's hitting the ball, and the DIRECTIONAL CHANGE.
F ≠ m·s
Mass times SPEED does NOT equal force.
Ahh, gotcha. I see the clarification now.
If there was no muscles in your arms which activate the hinges of your elbow and wrist, then the double pendulum model would be fine. You would have to slow down the upper pendulum in order to let the lower pendulum catch up.
As I said there can be one of two ways.
The wrists act as the axis point. Since the HANDS are below the wrist any force they apply to the club will act around this axis point. So, one of the ways to cause the club to swing around this axis point is by applying pressure to the club during the forward swing usually via the extension of the right arm. Since the right arm is pusing away from the right shoulder, this extension applies force to the club lower than the axis point of the wrists. That is the "muscular" version of how events can happen.
To demonstrate the other, you can simply remove your right hand from the club and you are forced to swing with just the left arm. The only pressure point that the left hand has on the club that is on the backside of the clubhandle is the thumb. The only muscular effort someone can employ then would be a downward press of the thumb on the shaft. That is a very very weak muscular action but is possible to utilize.
Since there is this lack of muscular ability to apply force to the backside of the club, we must rely on the initial momentum of the club developed in the initial stages of the forward swing to evetually PASS the speed of the hands. Pull hard fast at the start to maximize momentum, then slow down the left arm to let the clubhead catch up. The same as a boat and water ski. If the boat is making a sharp turn but then slows down it's turn the skiier will continue swinging around the boat.
I hope this helps.
I'm sorry what is nonsense? The fact that acceleration is both speed and direction or that you don't care a lick for anyone and just wanna rile up the crowd?
- Status